Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ARE RPG BATTLE SYSTEMS SHALLOWER THAN OTHER GENRES' ?
Posts
Pages:
1
Avee
5794
Avee
View playlists
CloseOkay, I don't know where this thread will go and it's quite blurted out, but these ideas just popped up after reading recent posts on the item hoarding thread and I wanted to share them.
Are RPG battle systems shallower than other genres' battle systems ?
I am referring to the "purer" kinds of RPG battle systems here, such as turn-based and ATB gauges systems, with command selection as the only mean of interaction.
By shallower, I mean that winning a battle within these systems all comes down to two things:
1) Matching attributes (such as exploiting elemental weaknesses or inducing some sort of handicap: silencing a spell caster can be considered as exploiting a weakness)
2) Optimizing numbers (such as using the most effective attacks for maximum HP damage or using the most effective ability in a given situation to minimize damage received, or maximizing experience points received)
But what about devising strategies, you say? When I think about it, the player's tasks only come down to these two goals regardless of how many different character abilities, equipment pieces, items, status effects, battlefield effects, alchemy recipes, resources gathering and crafting, etc. you can include in that kind of battle system.
Now let's add another goal, another layer to this battle system. Taking Strategy RPGs such as Fire Emblem as an example with the moving of character units on a battlefield grid. We now add a form of control over which characters can engage the enemy and which are more likely to be targeted, thus deepening the battle system by adding another task and complicating strategies.
Let's add Reaction Inputs (dunno how these are officially called) during attack and defense animations, the player having to press the right buttons with the right timing to alter outcomes or strengthen the previous goals (added damage, etc.) That's another layer here that draws the player's reaction skills.
My inspiration stops here... There are several other ways we could think of for adding layers of complexity to RPG battle systems.
It seems to me that more and more professional (or "industrial" if you'd prefer) RPGs nowadays try to deepen their battle system in such ways. Is it the same in the indie game development community?
Hopefully all repliers will read this little sentence here: I am not trying to belittle RPG battle systems, even though I admit having a strong preference for battle systems that include action elements.
This thread's goal is to discuss RPG battle systems' depth and suggest viewpoints or interesting design ideas toward it.
I'd love to hear what you think on this matter :)
P.S.: the thread's title is chosen for attention-grabbing purposes only :P
Are RPG battle systems shallower than other genres' battle systems ?
I am referring to the "purer" kinds of RPG battle systems here, such as turn-based and ATB gauges systems, with command selection as the only mean of interaction.
By shallower, I mean that winning a battle within these systems all comes down to two things:
1) Matching attributes (such as exploiting elemental weaknesses or inducing some sort of handicap: silencing a spell caster can be considered as exploiting a weakness)
2) Optimizing numbers (such as using the most effective attacks for maximum HP damage or using the most effective ability in a given situation to minimize damage received, or maximizing experience points received)
But what about devising strategies, you say? When I think about it, the player's tasks only come down to these two goals regardless of how many different character abilities, equipment pieces, items, status effects, battlefield effects, alchemy recipes, resources gathering and crafting, etc. you can include in that kind of battle system.
Now let's add another goal, another layer to this battle system. Taking Strategy RPGs such as Fire Emblem as an example with the moving of character units on a battlefield grid. We now add a form of control over which characters can engage the enemy and which are more likely to be targeted, thus deepening the battle system by adding another task and complicating strategies.
Let's add Reaction Inputs (dunno how these are officially called) during attack and defense animations, the player having to press the right buttons with the right timing to alter outcomes or strengthen the previous goals (added damage, etc.) That's another layer here that draws the player's reaction skills.
My inspiration stops here... There are several other ways we could think of for adding layers of complexity to RPG battle systems.
It seems to me that more and more professional (or "industrial" if you'd prefer) RPGs nowadays try to deepen their battle system in such ways. Is it the same in the indie game development community?
Hopefully all repliers will read this little sentence here: I am not trying to belittle RPG battle systems, even though I admit having a strong preference for battle systems that include action elements.
This thread's goal is to discuss RPG battle systems' depth and suggest viewpoints or interesting design ideas toward it.
I'd love to hear what you think on this matter :)
P.S.: the thread's title is chosen for attention-grabbing purposes only :P
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I think you are seriously condensing several major aspects of gameplay into "using the most effective ability in a given situation" in point B there. While you're not wrong, I think this needs to be split up, because it's the element that most RPG designers focus most of their effort in adding variety to.
2a) Forming the strategy that will deal or prevent the most damage
2b) Choosing how much you want to focus on offense vs. focus on defense
2c) Responding to or preventing enemy strategies that attempt to prevent you from using your chosen strategies from points 2a and 2b (this element is often absent in non-boss battles in many games)
2d) Renewing the resources needed to use your techniques (MP, cooldowns)
I would also add:
3) Attempting to use the minimum resources possible to achieve victory (stealing from enemies also falls under this category)
4) Planning ahead before the battle and configuring your party to optimize your chances of success (technically not part of the battle system, but still part of the primary gameplay system, which is fair if we're comparing RPGs to adventure/puzzle/racing/rhythm games)
I'm not adding and clarifying these to "defend RPGs," because I know you weren't attacking them; it's just to help get people's gears turning. (It's secretly also to defend RPGs, at least from douchenozzles who only read the topic and are like "hell yeah, right on avee, rpg gameplay sucks so bad")
As far as adding new other things, well, you can add stuff from any other genre of video games. You could add motion control, beatpad dancing, spot-the-difference image sets, memorization and recitation of japanese characters, or matchstick puzzles. Hell, you could add role-playing in the heat of battle if you wanted. If you can figure out how to make that work, let me know.
On a probably more useful note, I've seen several games in which you have abilities you can use during battle to increase the rewards you gain after battle. Doing so increases the difficulty of the battle, either directly (by powering up the enemies) or indirectly (by merely spending your turn). In some games you could do this multiple times per battle. It was an interesting mechanic that added an extra dimension to battles.
Personally one of my favorite things about RPGs is that they do not require any reflexes or coordination. So I'm personally more interested in non-action elements.
2a) Forming the strategy that will deal or prevent the most damage
2b) Choosing how much you want to focus on offense vs. focus on defense
2c) Responding to or preventing enemy strategies that attempt to prevent you from using your chosen strategies from points 2a and 2b (this element is often absent in non-boss battles in many games)
2d) Renewing the resources needed to use your techniques (MP, cooldowns)
I would also add:
3) Attempting to use the minimum resources possible to achieve victory (stealing from enemies also falls under this category)
4) Planning ahead before the battle and configuring your party to optimize your chances of success (technically not part of the battle system, but still part of the primary gameplay system, which is fair if we're comparing RPGs to adventure/puzzle/racing/rhythm games)
I'm not adding and clarifying these to "defend RPGs," because I know you weren't attacking them; it's just to help get people's gears turning. (It's secretly also to defend RPGs, at least from douchenozzles who only read the topic and are like "hell yeah, right on avee, rpg gameplay sucks so bad")
As far as adding new other things, well, you can add stuff from any other genre of video games. You could add motion control, beatpad dancing, spot-the-difference image sets, memorization and recitation of japanese characters, or matchstick puzzles. Hell, you could add role-playing in the heat of battle if you wanted. If you can figure out how to make that work, let me know.
On a probably more useful note, I've seen several games in which you have abilities you can use during battle to increase the rewards you gain after battle. Doing so increases the difficulty of the battle, either directly (by powering up the enemies) or indirectly (by merely spending your turn). In some games you could do this multiple times per battle. It was an interesting mechanic that added an extra dimension to battles.
Personally one of my favorite things about RPGs is that they do not require any reflexes or coordination. So I'm personally more interested in non-action elements.
Xenomic
1752
But Locke, isn't Kingdom Hearts a RPG? :3
On a more serious note, most people (including myself) tend to really boil it down to those yeah. I honestly don't think it's easy to diverse battle systems (though obviously, people have done it quite easily...). Though I think Locke pretty much hit it dead-on with that post...I gots nothing else to add to this now :s
On a more serious note, most people (including myself) tend to really boil it down to those yeah. I honestly don't think it's easy to diverse battle systems (though obviously, people have done it quite easily...). Though I think Locke pretty much hit it dead-on with that post...I gots nothing else to add to this now :s
Radnen
1806
hell yeah, right on avee, rpg gameplay sucks so bad
There. Now go play Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning... But then you get people who say that Amalur is too mainstream and button-smashy.
I think it comes down to your personality. Do you prefer action-immediacy? Or do you prefer ... chess?
If science had an answer to this kind of question it would have been answered. You can make an RPG with as much flair as an FPS (Mass Effect), or Action (Amalur), but then you muddy up the line between the genres. The important thing is the customers and if they realize the differences or not.
There. Now go play Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning... But then you get people who say that Amalur is too mainstream and button-smashy.
I think it comes down to your personality. Do you prefer action-immediacy? Or do you prefer ... chess?
If science had an answer to this kind of question it would have been answered. You can make an RPG with as much flair as an FPS (Mass Effect), or Action (Amalur), but then you muddy up the line between the genres. The important thing is the customers and if they realize the differences or not.
author=Avee
Now let's add another goal, another layer to this battle system. Taking Strategy RPGs such as Fire Emblem as an example with the moving of character units on a battlefield grid. We now add a form of control over which characters can engage the enemy and which are more likely to be targeted, thus deepening the battle system by adding another task and complicating strategies.
This adds an incredible amount of depth to battles.
One option I was considering was, if not to have a full on grid to position the battlers, at least have the option to place them in "rows", where melee attackers would not be able to engage foes who had other foes in front of them.
This would give more meaning to "ranged" attacks and weapons, etc.
author=rabitZauthor=AveeThis adds an incredible amount of depth to battles.
Now let's add another goal, another layer to this battle system. Taking Strategy RPGs such as Fire Emblem as an example with the moving of character units on a battlefield grid. We now add a form of control over which characters can engage the enemy and which are more likely to be targeted, thus deepening the battle system by adding another task and complicating strategies.
You meant "tedium" right? Also, I think LockeZ's 4th point is very important, and probably the #1 reason why I love RPGs so much. Prepping for battle is...ummm...half the battle!
Hahaha kentona, well if blown out of proportion everything becomes tedious, I suppose.
The system that I most fondly remember is that of Might & Magic 2.
It was a fron-view based battle system (like the ones on RMXP and VX by default), and there were only "two" rows.
But what a difference those two rows made.
The system that I most fondly remember is that of Might & Magic 2.
It was a fron-view based battle system (like the ones on RMXP and VX by default), and there were only "two" rows.
But what a difference those two rows made.
author=kentona
You meant "tedium" right? Also, I think LockeZ's 4th point is very important, and probably the #1 reason why I love RPGs so much. Prepping for battle is...ummm...half the battle!
I think pre-battle preparation is underdeveloped in a lot of RPGs today, and could evolve into so much more than it is!
Current, Lame-o Battle Prep: The player often knows little about upcoming boss battles or prepping for battle is mind-numbingly simple. In a volcano? Equip your Ice spells! Fighting a bunch of critters? Make sure to switch in your casters with AoE attacks! The decisions are simple and require little thought, value weighing, or sacrifice.
Now imagine this: An army is going to attack the city you're protecting in two days. The leader has challenged you to a battle between your party and his lieutenants, and if you win his army will retreat. You can try and gather information on your opponent: infiltrating his troops, or bribing his past cohorts; or you can try and weaken him beforehand: poisoning one of his lieutenants, or sabotaging their weapons; or you can try and subvert the army as a whole: via diplomacy, an ambush, or some other measure.
Any combination of these could increase your chance of victory in different ways. You only have time to do some of them, and if you fail, you set yourself up for a much harder battle. You also have related skills which can help you.
Maybe this is going too crazy-far in battle preparation, but it sounds like an interesting experiment. You could build a whole game around it. It's a little inspired by AD&D, and if you decided to explore a cave and you didn't bother asking around first to find out if it had ogres in it, your skull would be cracked in half by round two.
Crystalgate
694
author=Avee
By shallower, I mean that winning a battle within these systems all comes down to two things:
1) Matching attributes (such as exploiting elemental weaknesses or inducing some sort of handicap: silencing a spell caster can be considered as exploiting a weakness)
2) Optimizing numbers (such as using the most effective attacks for maximum HP damage or using the most effective ability in a given situation to minimize damage received, or maximizing experience points received)
But what about devising strategies, you say? When I think about it, the player's tasks only come down to these two goals regardless of how many different character abilities, equipment pieces, items, status effects, battlefield effects, alchemy recipes, resources gathering and crafting, etc.
I don't think how shallow an RPG battle system is has anything to do with that. You can reduce a lot of action oriented games to "hit the enemies" and "don't get hit by them". Chess, Go and a lot of other boardgames can also be reduced to "strengthen your position" and "weaken your opponent's position".
If you want depth, you need to get the elements to work together. Try character back-stories as an example. They add the most depth when they are tied into how the characters acts and develops, if they are just there, they can safely be ignored. There's of course also a quality over quantity deal here as well, if a backstory defines the entirety of the character, it will make the character look like a clockwork rather than adding depth.
RPGs are often not properly designed in that aspect. Imagine if you pick up a sniper rifle in an FPS. The game will make sure there are targets that are suitable for the new weapon, it won't have you fight in enclosed quarters for the next two stages. Now, imagine you get a blindness spell in an RPG instead. Chance is it will work most often against enemies that can be killed in two hits anyway and even against them, it may still fail and waste your turn entirely. Or let's say you get a defense up spell. Are the enemies groups designed so that the spell will help greatly against some of them, but not against other groups? Most likely the new enemies are just a bit stronger than those in the last dungeon with no thought put into what skills the player has access to. The exception is obvious cases such as ice spells during a fire dungeon.
Whenever you design any element in combat, be it skills, enemies, items or equipment, you need to take into account how it interacts with the other elements. You need to compare things to each other. How much damage do you prevent by blinding an enemy? How much damage do you prevent by casting a defense up spell? How much damage do you prevent by just trying to kill the enemies as fast as possible. How much does the healing spells restore? How much damage does the player have to prevent in the first place to be safe? From what I can tell, only the minority (including professional developers) goes trough that kind of trouble. However, if you want dept in a system based on numbers, chance is you will have to investigate those numbers closely.
Avee
5794
author=Crystalgate
I don't think how shallow an RPG battle system is has anything to do with that. You can reduce a lot of action oriented games to "hit the enemies" and "don't get hit by them". Chess, Go and a lot of other boardgames can also be reduced to "strengthen your position" and "weaken your opponent's position".
I didn't give much thought about how I expressed my ideas in the OP so, unsurprisingly I have to clarify a few of them:
When I said: "By shallower, I mean that winning a battle within these systems all comes down to two things:", winning is a poorly chosen word.
In any game that includes playable conflictual situations between two parties (mostly presented in the form of battles), in any genre (RPG, Action, Adventure, Strategy, Shooter, Puzzle, Board games, etc.), the goals always come down to:
1) Defeat the opponent (= Attack the enemy = Solve the puzzle, etc.)
2) Don't be defeated (= Survive = Don't fail, etc.)
Unless in a scripted battle where the result could be a draw or a loss, not winning the fight never lets the player advance in the game.
Trying to add depth to these 2 core goals is impossible: there are no other ways to end a battle, and therefore advance to the next part of the game, than by having one side lose. (duh)
What I should have said was not "how to win the fight", but "how to maximize your performance in the fight". Yet my following ideas went along that way, and most repliers understood my point of view.
So, maximizing your performance, as if every battle were evaluated and a rank was given to you upon winning. Now that is a concept that allows for depth addition, not in the outcome but rather in the process of the battle.
@Crystalgate:
Same thing happens within character development: depth is found in the "process" of the character, what they experience, what they think, what we know about them and how they change throughout the game, and not only upon their death or during the ending scene. That's kinda how I see depth in the battle system too: what options do we know and don't know yet, what will it make us think about, how can we use this feature to achieve that goal, how will we change our strategies throughout the game, etc.
As you say I think it would be interesting to find ways to add depth to the battle system through character development. The other way around, advancing char. dev. through the battle system, isn't uncommon and always appreciated.
The goals toward maximizing performance I mentioned were:
1) Matching attributes: exploit enemy weaknesses or hinder them as much as you can.
2) Optimizing numbers: maximize damage dealt to enemies, minimize damage received, maximize recovery amounts, maximize rewards (Exp, Money)...
LockeZ suggested that we add:
2 a) Forming the strategy that will deal or prevent the most damage.
EDIT: This one is too vague in my opinion. It would be more helpful to provide examples of commands/abilities that give desirable results when used in a certain order and/or depending on the enemies' actions.
2 b) Choosing how much you want to focus on offense vs. focus on defense.
2 c) Responding to or preventing enemy strategies that attempt to prevent you from using your chosen strategies from points 2a and 2b (this element is often absent in non-boss battles in many games)
2 d) Renewing the resources needed to use your techniques (MP, cooldowns)
These other sub-points sound right as ways to reach the "optimize numbers" goal, and easily give ideas about concrete commands or mechanics we could think of implementing. 2c is a little too vague though, as is 2a.
"Ways": that's one thing I'd like us to brainstorm in this thread.
LockeZ added two new goals too:
3) Attempting to use the minimum resources possible to achieve victory (stealing from enemies also falls under this category)
This sounds right. Planning on saving resources for latter, harder battles, therefore helping a better performance later on.
4) Planning ahead before the battle and configuring your party to optimize your chances of success (technically not part of the battle system, but still part of the primary gameplay system, which is fair if we're comparing RPGs to adventure/puzzle/racing/rhythm games)
To me this sounds similar to sub-point 2a: Forming the strategy that will deal or prevent the most damage --> Using your current knowledge of the game, devise the strategies that most help reach the other goals. Too vague.
Character customization draws on the knowledge and resources (including equipment, abilities, etc in the term here) of the player and other genres use it.
There is without a doubt a lot of options to think of and depth to explore here, but I personally wouldn't feel comfortable brainstorming it in this thread. I'd rather we focus on the battle system itself, that is from the point where the battle starts to the point where it ends.
I think that LockeZ points are depth-adding ideas that stay true to the purer RPG battle systems, unlike my earlier examples of "grid movement" and "reaction inputs". These were not only adding depth but also introducing other gameplay mechanics, thus mixing genres as some of you mentioned.
I'd like for this thread to welcome both types of ideas, and hopefully we'll come up with a fine list of basic ideas to increase depth.
author=rabitZ
One option I was considering was, if not to have a full on grid to position the battlers, at least have the option to place them in "rows", where melee attackers would not be able to engage foes who had other foes in front of them.
This would give more meaning to "ranged" attacks and weapons, etc.
Purer RPG battle systems often do not allow control over which party member is more likely to be targeted by enemies (unless they include skills such as Cover or Provoke). Targets are usually chosen at random or scripted (an enemy only attacks males for instance).
Including rows a la Might & Magic, Wizardry or Valkyrie Profile that change chances of targeting and being targeted (from 0% to only by long-ranged attacks) can add complexity to the battle strategies as part of the "optimize numbers" goal. This is another "way" to reach the goal and is an interesting option.
author=LockeZ
Hell, you could add role-playing in the heat of battle if you wanted. If you can figure out how to make that work, let me know.
What do you mean by role-playing here? For example the player faces a dilemma mid-battle and has the option to change sides, control the enemies and try to stop the heroes?
author=slashphoenix
Now imagine this...
These are interesting ideas, although a developer might struggle in finding a way to present and recount these events so that they actually look like preparation and not like mere subquests or parts of the main quest.
author=Crystalgate
Whenever you design any element in combat, be it skills, enemies, items or equipment, you need to take into account how it interacts with the other elements. You need to compare things to each other.
I agree. This is a basic rule of good game design in my opinion.
TL:DR: Let's keep on suggesting concrete ideas of features and mechanics that would add depth to RPG battle systems.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Let's take World of Warcraft's shaman class. It's a good example of skill rotations that rely on mechanics other than cooldowns. While a lot of rotations in a lot of games are based on simple cooldowns, and there's nothing wrong with cooldowns (I really like cooldowns in fact), I want to point out what happens when you have skills that specifically depend on the effects of other skills. For instance, look at these three spells:
Flame Shock: Causes medium fire damage immediately, and additional minor fire damage over 18 sec.
Fire Nova: Ignites any Flame Shock effects you've inflicted on any nearby enemies, causing each of them to emit a wave of flames that deals fire damage to every other enemy within 10 yards. This will cause the Flame Shock effects to immediately wear off.
Lava Burst: Deals heavy fire damage to a single targt. If you have inflicted Flame Shock on the target, Lava Burst will always deal a critical strike.
You can lump this under managing resources, which was already mentioned, but I feel like it's very different. I'd give it its own category: skill rotations. Skills that build upon other skills. The biggest difference between this type of strategy and a more basic one is that it takes place over several turns - this gives enemies a chance to interrupt it, by using an ability that requires the character to heal HP or cure ailments or dispel enemy buffs or move or defend or whatever else. The player then has to make a choice to either continue his/her strategy or abandon it. This in turn put a lot more importance on responding to enemies and recognizing enemy patterns.
I also think the simple idea of making enemies have soft or hard time limits can be hugely beneficial to strategy. While you probably can't make every boss battle in the game include while a timer that's counting down until the building explodes (well you could, and I'd play that game, but you can't do it in every game) what you can do is make enemies that gradually buff themselves, or that enrage and become more powerful after a certain number of turns or certain amount of time. This helps ensure you can't win just by surviving long enough no matter how many times your offensive strategies fail. There are other ways to get the same effect - bosses that heal, bosses that summon allies, only letting the player heal 5 times per battle, etc. - but the goal is the same. The goal is to add a simple new element of strategy: win faster. I know I already mentioned "Choosing how much you want to focus on offense vs. focus on defense" but I wanted to expand on this since it's something that a lot of games fail to meaningfully include.
Flame Shock: Causes medium fire damage immediately, and additional minor fire damage over 18 sec.
Fire Nova: Ignites any Flame Shock effects you've inflicted on any nearby enemies, causing each of them to emit a wave of flames that deals fire damage to every other enemy within 10 yards. This will cause the Flame Shock effects to immediately wear off.
Lava Burst: Deals heavy fire damage to a single targt. If you have inflicted Flame Shock on the target, Lava Burst will always deal a critical strike.
You can lump this under managing resources, which was already mentioned, but I feel like it's very different. I'd give it its own category: skill rotations. Skills that build upon other skills. The biggest difference between this type of strategy and a more basic one is that it takes place over several turns - this gives enemies a chance to interrupt it, by using an ability that requires the character to heal HP or cure ailments or dispel enemy buffs or move or defend or whatever else. The player then has to make a choice to either continue his/her strategy or abandon it. This in turn put a lot more importance on responding to enemies and recognizing enemy patterns.
I also think the simple idea of making enemies have soft or hard time limits can be hugely beneficial to strategy. While you probably can't make every boss battle in the game include while a timer that's counting down until the building explodes (well you could, and I'd play that game, but you can't do it in every game) what you can do is make enemies that gradually buff themselves, or that enrage and become more powerful after a certain number of turns or certain amount of time. This helps ensure you can't win just by surviving long enough no matter how many times your offensive strategies fail. There are other ways to get the same effect - bosses that heal, bosses that summon allies, only letting the player heal 5 times per battle, etc. - but the goal is the same. The goal is to add a simple new element of strategy: win faster. I know I already mentioned "Choosing how much you want to focus on offense vs. focus on defense" but I wanted to expand on this since it's something that a lot of games fail to meaningfully include.
author=LockeZ
Hell, you could add role-playing in the heat of battle if you wanted. If you can figure out how to make that work, let me know.
I think it is not that unheard of in a story-driven RPG for an important battle to be temporarily interrupted to allow for a dialogue dump. It might be the protagonists talking amongst themselves, or it might be a protagonist exchanging trash-talk with the antagonists. Let the player choose some of the dialogue options and you would have a form of role-playing. Let those choices affect the battle or character stats or the direction of the story and it could start to get interesting.
If battles are as routine as RPGs portray them to be, I'd expect the protagonists to be chatting as they go about their work. If not, I'd expect them to be arguing heatedly over tactics and more; you'd think life-and-death situations would provoke more contention among party members than they often do, so there's plenty of untapped potential for role-playing in the heat of battle, I imagine.
Pages:
1
